MGB: How Ironic...

Government health care rescues protesters at anti-government health care rally.
Thousands of protesters came to Capitol Hill yesterday for Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) protest against health care reform, capping months of fear-mongering about the dangers of so-called “socialized” medicine. However, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that at one point, one of the protesters had a heart attack. Luckily, federally-employed medical personnel were able to quickly attend to him — even though they were part of government-run health care, which is supposedly quite dangerous:

More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care — rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.

This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. “Join us in defeating Pelosi care!” he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher.

By the end of the day, “medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care.”

that is pretty hysterical

I wonder if anyones granny had the plug pulled on them...

or if they forced an abortion on some pregnant women

Sea level, gentlemen.

Now, take 4 minutes and listen to another viewpoint at 10,000 feet (the "bigger picture" if my subtlety eludes you).

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

I don't think emergency care will suffer as much as other sectors of heath care, unless doctors decide to leave the field or they are just overwhelmed by sheer numbers of patients. Its the follow up to emergency care that will suffer.

One possible scenario, a patient goes to the emergency room with chest pains. He or she will be seen as quickly as possible. If the doctors deem a heart cath is necessary, the patient will be whisked to the cath lab for diagnosis. If a blockage or blockages are found, and the case is determined to be surgical, that's when the cost/benefit analysis will begin. How old is the patient? Is the patient a smoker? Is the patient overweight? All of these questions are asked to assess the chances of recovery and the best course of treatment. When we add the government bureaucrat into the system, who is only looking at saving money , how will his assessment of cost/benefit effect the treatment choices?

Oh yeah, those government health care workers mentioned in the original post, the ones who saved the heart attack victims, they will be the ones taking care of our Congressmen, not the ones taking care of the rest of us. Remember, those bastards won't sign on to the same health care system they're sticking us with.

[quote="John Hamilton"]
I don't think emergency care will suffer as much as other sectors of heath care, unless doctors decide to leave the field or they are just overwhelmed by sheer numbers of patients. Its the follow up to emergency care that will suffer.

One possible scenario, a patient goes to the emergency room with chest pains. He or she will be seen as quickly as possible. If the doctors deem a heart cath is necessary, the patient will be whisked to the cath lab for diagnosis. If a blockage or blockages are found, and the case is determined to be surgical, that's when the cost/benefit analysis will begin. How old is the patient? Is the patient a smoker? Is the patient overweight? All of these questions are asked to assess the chances of recovery and the best course of treatment. When we add the government bureaucrat into the system, who is only looking at saving money , how will his assessment of cost/benefit effect the treatment choices?[/quote]---------were do you get this from,do you make it up as you go along? Did you dream it? Can you specifically back this up? Wait i know the answer to that one> NO.

Scenario, possible scenario. No proof, just pure speculation. I do, however, work in this environment, so I have a little insight on how things work today.

I'd like to hear your speculations given the scant information that has been gleaned so far regarding the proposed health insurance legislation.

Are you aware that the bill creates over 100 new boards or agencies? Exactly what they are needed for is beyond my pay grade, but speculation says it ain't good for the patient.

Steve didn't like my negative scenario, so let's look another possibility.

Same patient, ER visit with chest pains, sent to the cath lab and is diagnosed with heart disease serious enough to require a five vessel bypass. There is no question about whether he gets his surgery or not, he is simply scheduled for surgery as soon as possible. He gets the very best of care and makes a full recovery. And thanks to the Democrats in congress, all he has to pay is his monthly premium. Everybody's happy.

Sorry, I have no proof of this being reality either, do you? My fear of government intrusion makes me lean towards the first one.

I hope, since this will be rammed through regardless if I want it to or not, that I am completely wrong and Steve is completely right. If it turns out he is right, I'll admit the error of my ways and try to make amends.

I don't understand the point. They are two different things. Regardless the system we have now or the new one proposed it will be no different. The emergency would be dealt with. If the patient has insurance they will be billed by the Federal agency providing the service. Under the new plan either the Private exhange would be billed or the public plan would be billed.

So, "federally-employed medical personnel" is government health care? Wow, I didn't realize...

Joe, have you ever been to a Medi-Cal clinic? Before you decide about government health care, I think you should give up any insurance you have and go apply for Medi-Cal and experience it first hand. When you've done your turn then get back to us with your report.

[quote=6863m]
I don't understand the point. They are two different things. Regardless the system we have now or the new one proposed it will be no different. The emergency would be dealt with. If the patient has insurance they will be billed by the Federal agency providing the service. Under the new plan either the Private exhange would be billed or the public plan would be billed.[/quote]

Richard, some more halve truths from you, typical

right now, if someone without insurance goes to the emergency room, say with a huge tumor, the emergency room will treat the emergency, but not the illness. the person will be sent home, with the tumor, and left to die. in the following weeks the huge bill from the emergency room visit will start arriving for the cancer patients family to deal with, probably causing a bankruptcy.

but in Richards gated community, where children are tortured and mexicans replace his american union workers, everything is OK

Joe, in my gated community I don't have any mexicans working for me, I don't believe in it, my gardner is named John and the house keeper is named Jody. You are mixing up the subject we were not talking about general emergency rooms. We were talking about you were somehow trying to connect the emergency capability of the capital police and Pelosi care. Before you try twisting what I say stick with the subject.

I am at my river house and the two people building the dock and ramp are named Lisa and Shelia two females, the carpet layer was Vince. Not a mexican in sight. Me I am German and am the boss of the project.

must be nice to have all those people working for you.

sorry if I wasn't more clear, was referring to the company you retired from, and how you dumped your american workers and bused in mexican workers to replace them. go america

please tell john, jody, lisa and sheila I said hi. I wonder if they know you think the president has the constitutional authority to torture children? probably not

I hope Lisa and Sheila are not partners, cause I am sure they would not be happy with you wanting to limit their freedoms. But maybe your hatred of gays is offset by your love of spreading freedom and democracy and killing hundreds of thousands of people doing so.

could these be the gay people you know and you let sit on your couch?

Joe, you see that is where we are different. I could care less about whether they are gay or not. I only care that they build a good dock. I did not pay them any more or less than any other contractor. I did ask them what they thought of the Maine vote on marraige and they said they thought it was over kill and civil unions have everything they need. You will somehow sit in your house and worry yourself all wet wondering if someone is taking advantage or sneering. For me they are just two really good dock builders. They are good enought no one sneers at them or their work.

good for you Richard I'm proud.

...I used to know a guy that lived in a crated community.....maybe it was a refrigerator box ..I can't remember..it was years ago.

Richard, the point I failed to make clearly was the follow-up care to the initial emergency. I think the initial emergency would handled exactly the same way. A patient's vital information is taken at the check-in to the hospital, to include height, weight, age, body mass index (fat), smoking status, eating habits, medications, etc. During an emergency MI (heart attack), the patient will be sent to the cath lab for initial diagnostics. They will stabilize the patient if possible, balloon or stent the lesion(s) if possible to restore blood flow, or refer the patient to a surgeon for bypass surgery if the disease is too advanced or involves numerous vessels. Surgery is normally a scheduled procedure, not part of the emergency treatment.

It's at this point I believe the bureaucrat would step in to evaluate the cost benefit. If the patient poses too big a risk or too small a chance of recovery, would aggressive treatment (surgery) be delayed or possibly a substitute drug therapy be employed instead? I don't know the answer to that, but one of the more that 100 new boards or agencies that this health care legislation includes will no doubt have oversight authority.

I abhor this, bureaucrats have no place in the decision making process between the doctor and the patient.

To all, this is just my opinion, I have no facts supporting it, just pure speculation.

[quote="John Hamilton"]
Richard, the point I failed to make clearly was the follow-up care to the initial emergency. I think the initial emergency would handled exactly the same way. A patient's vital information is taken at the check-in to the hospital, to include height, weight, age, body mass index (fat), smoking status, eating habits, medications, etc. During an emergency MI (heart attack), the patient will be sent to the cath lab for initial diagnostics. They will stabilize the patient if possible, balloon or stent the lesion(s) if possible to restore blood flow, or refer the patient to a surgeon for bypass surgery if the disease is too advanced or involves numerous vessels. Surgery is normally a scheduled procedure, not part of the emergency treatment.

It's at this point I believe the bureaucrat would step in to evaluate the cost benefit. If the patient poses too big a risk or too small a chance of recovery, would aggressive treatment (surgery) be delayed or possibly a substitute drug therapy be employed instead? I don't know the answer to that, but one of the more that 100 new boards or agencies that this health care legislation includes will no doubt have oversight authority.

I abhor this, bureaucrats have no place in the decision making process between the doctor and the patient.

To all, this is just my opinion, I have no facts supporting it, just pure speculation.[/quote]

But in government run health care the burecrats don't have any say in the decision making process. The cost benefit analysis doesn't happen. If the Dr. Reccomends treatment the person gets it simple as that. What your talking about only happens in a for profit system where the insurance companies are trying to minimize their risk and increase their profit. If you think they care about your life your sadly mistaken. All they care about is their bottom line.

In a perfect world, where there are no shortages, you are correct. When government takes over health care, will there be an abundance or will there be rationing?

[quote="John Hamilton"]
In a perfect world, where there are no shortages, you are correct. When government takes over health care, will there be an abundance or will there be rationing?[/quote]

But right now there is rationing in the for profit system. The fact you can go in right away aqnd get something that is non urget but necessary is great.. good for you.. but the insurance company is always negotiating your care with your care givers to give them the best bang for the buck, and not always the best treatment. Here you get what the dr thinks you needs. He doesn't have to answer about the cost to anyone, end of story...

What do you think of sending us some of the experienced guys from Canada to help us get the ball rolling. You guys have got it figured out and the majority of Canadians seem to like and trust the system. I'd gladly defer to someone who's done it successfully rather than trust our elected offenders to get it right. Thanks for the insight.

"Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care"

But not the health care to be passed down to the peons, only to the senate and house representatives.